Net neutrality fight: GOP wields garlic against FCC “vampires”

Only hours after taking control of the House, Republicans introduced a bill to …

The new, Republican-controlled House of Representatives started work yesterday, and it took only a few hours before anti-net neutrality legislation was introduced to stop the "vampires" at the FCC from imposing net neutrality on American Internet access providers.

No surprises here; Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) had last year made plain her opposition to net neutrality, and she pledged back in November to legislate against the FCC.

"Chairman Genachowski has little if any Congressional support for net neutrality," she said at the time. "He can expect this folly to be resolutely overturned in the new year, and to ensure that, I will reintroduce my bill to pull the FCC from the policy making process on the first day of the 112th Congress."

Blackburn was as good as her word. She spent her first day back at work introducing a slew of strongly conservative bills, including ones:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should issue, and Congress should hold hearings on, a report and a certification regarding the responsibilities, authorities, and powers of his "czars."

To provide for enhanced Federal, State, and local assistance in the enforcement of the immigration laws.

To amend the Clean Air Act to provide that greenhouse gases are not subject to the Act.

To make 15 percent across-the-board rescissions in non-defense, non-homeland-security, and non-veterans-affairs discretionary spending for each of the fiscal years 2011 and 2012.

Finally, there was H.R. 96, a bill "to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from further regulating the Internet." Blackburn had sponsored this bill during the last Congress, too, where it went absolutely nowhere. When she introduced it back in 2009, she suggested it should be called the "Real Stimulus Act of 2009." It contained only a few lines, chief of which was this one: "In General—The Federal Communications Commission shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services." National security issues and wiretapping rules would be exempt from this restriction.

Blackburn's bill has 59 cosponsors. Although unlikely to become law in anything like its current form, it's a reminder of how serious Republicans are about overturning or at least limiting the FCC's net neutrality rules passed back in December.

Blackburn, in particular, hates the idea of such rules with a passion usually reserved for things like tax increases or new federal programs. Consider her rhetoric from last December, when the rules passed the FCC on a 3-2 vote:

There's no such thing as hospice for federal bureaucracies. No quiet corner where bureaus who have outlived their usefulness can go to bravely face the end. The undead need no such niceties; not when they can leap vampire-like upon the next great sector of American life and proceed to suck it dry in the name of "public interest," "fair play," or any other euphemistic glamour the Executive and Legislative branches can be lulled into

Just four days before Christmas, the FCC will make its vampric leap from its traditional jurisdiction—the terrestrial radio and land line telephones that have fallen into disuse; onto the gifts piled neatly under our trees. The iPads and iPhones, Androids, Wiis, Webbooks, and WiFi will all feel the federal bite in a way they never have before

The FCC is effectively nationalizing the web Industry and creative content providers who were coerced into this deal by an over zealous FCC Chairman should take heart. Like the breaking of dawn, the new Congress will prove a swift antidote to the federal bloodsucker you found at your throat this Christmas.

Chairman Genachowski has been warned about his vampiric ways—and it now looks like Congress is after him with cloves of rhetorical garlic and stakes of legislative lumber.

I'm not very happy with how the FCC has handled the issue, but it looks like I'm also not happy with how Blackburn has expressed herself regarding the issue either. The fact is, though, that I'm not really clear what her real stance is. She seems more concerned with anti-FCC than any particular set of regulation or un-regulation. Is there any non-political explanation of what this bill will do, or will it simply remove the FCC's ability to do anything about the internet?

Honestly, I don't take issue with that. I think that it should be Congress, not the FCC making large-scale decisions such as this. The FCC doesn't have any direct accountability in terms of elections, whereas Congress does. Theoretically, this makes them a bit more accountable for their actions if enough people disagree with them. (Realistically, I know that it doesn't matter, the politicians will take their money from AT&T, Comcast and the rest, and I'll end up getting screwed as a customer who wants to get what I pay for.)

So who will stop the ISP vampires from draining the internet? Remember, this isn't just about pricing. ISPs could completely censor a site that they don't like, for any reason. I'm sure the major players will "trade" with each other too - ie - you block site X for me, and I'll block site Y for you. They barely compete with each other as it is...

morphoyle - that's called Collusion (best example is when energy companies all agree to ramp up prices together), and it's illegal, but then again, so are monopolies, supposedly...

I also agree with something I read on ars yesterday that maybe the FTC and not the FCC should be in this fight (net neutrality).

But the beauty of it is that Internet access usually isn't a monopoly, but a duopoly, so there should be PLENTY of competition!

What's even worse is in areas where there is some basic resemblance of competition (4 national wireless carriers), we can still get screwed for no apparent reason like when text messages not on a plan rose to 20 cents by ALL carriers for no apparent reason... That is a perfect example of why regulation is needed: companies will collude when they can get away with it (or simply call it "adjusting to the market at large") =/

I don't agree with this because I think the FCC needs to be able to step in if something does happen down the road.

But at the same time I don't support kneejerk legislation based on what they could do when they haven't done it yet. For example I could run my car through your living room but does that mean my car should be taken away because I could in theory do it?

I don't believe telcos/cableco's are going to do something that puts them in anti-trust crosshairs.

But at the same time I don't support kneejerk legislation based on what they could do when they haven't done it yet.

The catch is that they have stated an intention to do exactly what is being targeted, and with their greed are virtually guaranteed to do. The telcos and their buddies in the rest of the media industries hate the internet, so long as it doesn't wholly serve their own purposes.

Quote:

I don't believe telcos/cableco's are going to do something that puts them in anti-trust crosshairs.

Sure they will, they'll just bank on their buddies in the Republican party to lambaste and hinder any attempt to prosecute their abuses, accusing the Federal Government in the exact same manner they are now.

Yeah really, is the government here to serve the people and ensure they don't get the short end of the stick, or is it here to allow corporations to rape and pillage the citizenry all in the name of "jobs" and "innovation" (as per this mornings CES keynote).

(yea, I know that's something of a false dichotomy, but I'm really only repeating the argument between Ds and Rs)

But at the same time I don't support kneejerk legislation based on what they could do when they haven't done it yet.

The catch is that they have stated an intention to do exactly what is being targeted, and with their greed are virtually guaranteed to do. The telcos and their buddies in the rest of the media industries hate the internet, so long as it doesn't wholly serve their own purposes.

Quote:

I don't believe telcos/cableco's are going to do something that puts them in anti-trust crosshairs.

Sure they will, they'll just bank on their buddies in the Republican party to lambaste and hinder any attempt to prosecute their abuses, accusing the Federal Government in the exact same manner they are now.

In the US? Please show me this stated intention. What i've seen is a lot of fear mongering from groups claiming that the telco's are going to play gatekeeper when I have yet to see this happen. The only thing i've seen is the Level3/Comcast dispute which is still a complicated and unresolved issue. I'm just saying i've seen more fear mongering from consumer groups than i've actually seen abuses.

I hate propaganda no matter where it comes from consumer groups included.

"It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes."-United States Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) to describe the Internet in the context of opposing network neutrality.

It's nice to see that the Republicans have found someone with a clearer understanding of the subject who can speak out on behalf of the American people with clear metaphors that make sense. Oh, wait a minute...

Oh, back when this mess started with AT&T's CEO whining about Google. Or when Comcast decided to start indiscriminately killing BT transfers. Or the wonderful slides being shown to various ISPs regarding per-site charges. They would like nothing more than to part the internet out like cable TV is today.

Quote:

What i've seen is a lot of fear mongering from groups claiming that the telco's are going to play gatekeeper when I have yet to see this happen.

So you don't want to move until it's too late? I don't have any trust in the corporations at play here, unlike you seem to.

Quote:

The only thing i've seen is the Level3/Comcast dispute which is still a complicated and unresolved issue. I'm just saying i've seen more fear mongering from consumer groups than i've actually seen abuses.

Considering how freely corporations screw over consumers in this country for the sake of profits, I'm amazed you're blind to the abuses. But let's go ahead and keep telling ourselves we have the best health system, the best internet access, and a whole boatload of other lies.

Seriously, no really, seriously, is she for real? I mean I like some of her stuff in basic concept, but to gut the FCC? Come on now, they may not be the best at it, but they were the only ones trying to do something at least.

"It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes."-United States Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) to describe the Internet in the context of opposing network neutrality.

It's nice to see that the Republicans have found someone with a clearer understanding of the subject who can speak out on behalf of the American people with clear metaphors that make sense. Oh, wait a minute...

I wish I had a pic of who was in the gallery when she submitted the legislation, I can just bet, one Telco lobbyist after another all gushing over her nonsense. It never ceases to amaze me how easily the GOP can play the part of protecting the average American only to serve Big Business - and Americans eat it up over and over.

IMO the telcos need to decide: exist as regulated monopolies, or give up your monopoly status in favor of less regulation. I can only buy Internet from the cable/telco duopoly, and if I want the fastest speed, only the cable company. If they were forced to share their lines with any competitor at wholesale prices, I'd be fine with them existing unregulated. But if they want to be the only show in town, it's the government's role to protect me from their abusive policies.

Oh, back when this mess started with AT&T's CEO whining about Google. Or when Comcast decided to start indiscriminately killing BT transfers. Or the wonderful slides being shown to various ISPs regarding per-site charges. They would like nothing more than to part the internet out like cable TV is today.

Quote:

What i've seen is a lot of fear mongering from groups claiming that the telco's are going to play gatekeeper when I have yet to see this happen.

So you don't want to move until it's too late? I don't have any trust in the corporations at play here, unlike you seem to.

Quote:

The only thing i've seen is the Level3/Comcast dispute which is still a complicated and unresolved issue. I'm just saying i've seen more fear mongering from consumer groups than i've actually seen abuses.

Considering how freely corporations screw over consumers in this country for the sake of profits, I'm amazed you're blind to the abuses. But let's go ahead and keep telling ourselves we have the best health system, the best internet access, and a whole boatload of other lies.

A candid comment by a CEO that is no longer part of the company about a practice AT&T never employed?

Comcast throttling bittorrent traffic i'll agree with sure but the issue was resolved and even when the appeal was overturned Comcast never went back to the practice.

Not that I don't want to move till its to late but I don't want over regulation either regulation which can either make things better or make it worse. Notice I say it could make it better but i'm not comfortable playing russian roulette until I see this charging based on packet type.

Could someone tell me her specific objections to net neutrality, without the rhetoric? Is the justification just the same oxymoronic net neutrality will restrict innovation argument?

I here what you're saying buy I'm totally conflicted with the issue. On one hand I don't want to see regulation, but on the other hand it appears ISP's will throttle services based on usage and fees paid, even though their customers paid for full access. So I have an issue with both sides.

Even thought it's a risk and I don't like lawsuits I think ISP's shouldn't be regulated and if they throttle third parties due to bandwidth usage, then they should be sued by consumers. But they you run into usage terms and rewording to benefit the pipeline providers, which is even more of a headache. To me this is the definition of big greedy business and I am against these types of practices. Obviously net neutrality negates any lawsuits and forces ISP's to be fair to content providers, but it's the content providers that add value to the ISP's. Cable, FOIS and DSL providers offer the pipe, but seriously suck for content.

As I said, I'm conflicted and could go on and on, but fug it. We'll see how it all plays out.

It's actually really fascinating to me - the level of mass-hypnosis that these people and their propaganda machine have inflicted on so many people. There's not enough critical thinking going on. Idiocracy, here we come!

This can't be stated enough. Monopolies aren't illegal in the least, in fact, they are frequently imposed by the government itself. The only thing that is illegal is anti-competitive actions designed to benefit the individual business and harm competitors and consumers. In fact, it's even legal to use anti-competitive means to harm your competitor as long as you do not stand to profit from it. (See the old cigarette company suits for examples)

The public needs to get educated about some basic economics. Monopolies aren't inherently bad. Unregulated markets aren't inherently good. It's far more complicated than the left/right talking points and ideologies make it out to be.

I wish I had a pic of who was in the gallery when she submitted the legislation, I can just bet, one Telco lobbyist after another all gushing over her nonsense. It never ceases to amaze me how easily the GOP can play the part of protecting the average American only to serve Big Business - and Americans eat it up over and over.

And it astonishes me that you imply it's just the GOP to which your statement applies. And it's not just Big Business (TM) feeding the corruptocrats in Washington. It's also national public and private sector unions, and special interest groups of every stripe.

What's even more frustrating (scary?) is that it appears that a lot of folks out on the right -- not saying all or even most conservatives! -- seem to be interpreting "net neutrality" as stifling free speech, mandating 'neutral' or balanced opinions. Courtesy the folks that gave us death panels.

From Blackburn in the Article:Just four days before Christmas, the FCC will make its vampric leap from its traditional jurisdiction—the terrestrial radio and land line telephones that have fallen into disuse; onto the gifts piled neatly under our trees. The iPads and iPhones, Androids, Wiis, Webbooks, and WiFi will all feel the federal bite in a way they never have before…

Does this epically moronic douchebaguette have any clue that the FCC stands for Federal Communications Commission? I'm sorry, but what is the Internet if not a massive form of communication. Heaven forbid the commission created to handle such things should take over regulating it when it becomes the prominent communication technology!

Quote:

Originally posted by Schmads:Honestly, I don't take issue with that. I think that it should be Congress, not the FCC making large-scale decisions such as this. The FCC doesn't have any direct accountability in terms of elections, whereas Congress does. Theoretically, this makes them a bit more accountable for their actions if enough people disagree with them. (Realistically, I know that it doesn't matter, the politicians will take their money from AT&T, Comcast and the rest, and I'll end up getting screwed as a customer who wants to get what I pay for.)

I agree and I disagree with you here. In theory, yes, it should be Congress handling all regulation instead of FCC, FTC, etc. However, how many times on this site alone have you seen judges' rulings reported where the judge obviously had no clue about the technology on which he/she ruled? How often have we heard lawmakers open their mouths and lay to rest any doubt on their ignorance about advancing technology? These are the people you prefer to make the regulations?

The entire purpose of creating the commissions is to allow people who can specialize in the needed areas to make the regulations in order to ensure better accuracy and effectiveness on the government's part for interfering. While I agree that the public needs a more direct manner of recourse against the commissions, and that there is too much middle-man going on, this really is a better way to do regulations and oversight by the federal government than the alternative grab-bag of Congress calling all the shots. It also helps remove one more level of lobbying entering into the picture.

Also, riders and pork-barrel legislation. You seriously, truly want that to be the control over your ISPs and free market?